Healthcare Complexities in Neurodegenerative Proteinopathies: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Neurodegenerative proteinopathies, such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), are increasingly prevalent worldwide mainly due to population aging. These conditions are marked by complex etiologies, overlapping pathologies, and progressive clinical decline, with significant consequences for patients, caregivers, and healthcare systems. This review aims to synthesize evidence on the healthcare complexities of major neurodegenerative proteinopathies to highlight current knowledge gaps, and to inform future care models, policies, and research directions. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE using combinations of MeSH terms and keywords related to neurodegenerative diseases, proteinopathies, diagnosis, sex, management, treatment, caregiver burden, and healthcare delivery. Studies were included if they addressed the clinical, pathophysiological, economic, or care-related complexities of aging-related neurodegenerative proteinopathies. Results: Key themes identified include the following: (1) multifactorial and unclear etiologies with frequent co-pathologies; (2) long prodromal phases with emerging biomarkers; (3) lack of effective disease-modifying therapies; (4) progressive nature requiring ongoing and individualized care; (5) high caregiver burden; (6) escalating healthcare and societal costs; and (7) the critical role of multidisciplinary and multi-domain care models involving specialists, primary care, and allied health professionals. Conclusions: The complexity and cost of neurodegenerative proteinopathies highlight the urgent need for prevention-focused strategies, innovative care models, early interventions, and integrated policies that support patients and caregivers. Prevention through the early identification of risk factors and prodromal signs is critical. Investing in research to develop effective disease-modifying therapies and improve early detection will be essential to reducing the long-term burden of these disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".